NEW ROSE HOTEL (1998)

Directed By: Abel Ferrara

Written By: Abel Ferrara and Christi Zois

Based on a short story by William Gibson

Cinematography: Ken Kelsch 

Editor: Jim Mol and Anthony Redman

Cast: Willem Dafoe, Christopher Walken, Asia Argento, Annabella Sciorra, Victor Argo, Gretchen Mol, John Lurie 

In the not-too-distant future, two New York businessmen plot to play two multinational rival corporations against each other, with a little help from a shady Italian street woman, to obtain an important Japanese businessman for the company they work at, only things are not always as they appear.


Abel Ferrara is a talented writer and director who always seems to dip his toe into things that could be seen as shocking. It might be that is just his interest in the stories that he wants to tell. Nowadays he makes more personal, dramatic, artistic films, but for a time he seemed to be a provocateur when it came to cinema stories of the streets of New York, in particular, starting out with more horror films, then seemed to have a period where it was mostly crime related films.

He is a filmmaker of interest who is very unapologetic, though I will admit since his movie, BAD LIEUTINENT, and his one studio-made film a remake of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, his films have been for me at least hit or miss. Unfortunately, it feels like they usually miss or fail to make a connection. Though he’s a filmmaker where you can always find something of interest in his films or his filmmaking.

I remember at the time being interested in this movie, more to see Asia Argento and I felt because she looked very enticing, and the story sounded somewhat interesting. Not to mention liked the cast of it mostly being her Willem Dafoe and Christopher Walken, even though at the time it seemed like Willem Dafoe and Christopher Walken were almost in everything so seeing them in yet another film wasn’t that enticing but with her as the added attraction. 

As I had only seen pictures of her and not really seen her in a movie, not to mention with Abel Ferrara directing, I knew it would be dark and troubling, but reading the synopsis of the story and plot it never quite gelled with me, especially from people who have seen it They just didn’t seem like it was worth going to movie theaters to check this movie out.

Watching it now. Almost 25 years later I’m kind of glad I didn’t see it in theaters. It’s not a bad movie, but I would’ve been greatly disappointed and it would’ve probably been more forgettable to me. I would’ve seen it as more experimental and artistic, so it would also show how the story could be told more on a limited budget, especially one that is set in the future and kind of cyberpunk. As after all, it is based on a short story by William Gibson. This might be why the film seems so rebellious and Avant Garde or striving to be different. 

The film has a lot of cutaways of digital video and photography that we come back to throughout the story.

There is a lot of eroticism and a few scenes of sex on display. One of the themes of this film seems to be fantasy and how much you let it take over especially as you know the truth but you want to believe.

It seems like the film is more about all these vipers being hustlers on their own, being brought together to take down a big fish, and slowly turning on each other, as at the center of it one makes the dangerous decision of not only trust, but love, especially with somebody who works as a professional seductress were acting is their professional, so you never know when they’re being genuinely Trust or telling you what you wanna hear to their own satisfaction

It seems like the camera is as captivated with Asia Argento as much as The characters are as it always seems to be exploring and exposing her allure, so while it doesn’t provide her an acting exercise where we see her day-to-day. this is a goddess movie. Where it seems the allure and the strength of the film is on the femme fatale and how the audience feels about her as a film and its own wife fetishizes her to a degree, making the film and the protagonist see her more as a goddess.

There is Something about Asia Argento, her films, and her career. I’ve always been kind of in awe, but she rarely got a chance to shine or have that career-defining performance. It was more she was in hit movies, but you don’t, in particular, remember her performances or character, because you could point out movies like LAND OF THE DEAD or MARIE ANTOINETTE or XXX, yes she was in those films as a cast member, but none of her performances stand out.

Even when she directed her own films such as an adaptation of the book THE HEART IS DECEITFUL ABOVE ALL THINGS. which were more controversial and shocking, she made a little impact, but never long-lasting unfortunately, as they were artistic, but seemed more poised to shock. so I always look at her career as a kind of example of promises made, but never quite capitalizing on all the talk, hype, or Fame. there might’ve been more personal reasons as to why her career stalled at a certain point, but I still find her talented, beautiful, and stunning and half the time when I watch some of her movies. It was just to see her in it And she looked sensational and in most of them captivating. 

It’s also interesting that the film has great actress Gretchen Mol featured in a small but important role throughout as at the time she was also considered an ingenue in the acting world, the next big thing or flavor of the month at the time, though she is displayed for less in this film.

The film comes across as a futuristic tale that had an idea that was original but did not have the budget for the ambitions of the script so it feels like the third act is made to put the story of what actually happens or happens from scenes we’ve seen earlier as flashbacks or memories to explain it all.

It’s an interestingly constructed film with a good soundtrack. that uses a lot of it looks to be handheld video and a bunch of scenes, or at least the beginning of digital video being used and more professional films.

Offering a third-act explanation of everything by pointing out what was evident in playing sight from before now that might be because I just didn’t have enough money to finish and film. Actually, it is very creative but can be seen as frustrating to someone in the audience who is traditional filmmaking or is used to having, their hands held to end to the end

Does it have an ending? Strangely it feels somewhat unfinished. This would be a film that definitely could stand the case of being remade.

A bit disappointing but creative. Its artistic flourishes seem born out of not having the budget that was expected and making the best out of the situation. Though definitely a film where the camera is in love with Asia Argento. As much as the main character.  As it spotlights her almost fetishistically. 

Grade: C

THE HARD WAY (1991)

Directed By: John Badham 
Written By: Lem Dobbs & Daniel Pyne 
Story By: Lem Dobbs & Michael Kozoll 
Cinematography By: Don McAlpine & Robert Primes 
Editor: Tony Lombardo & Frank Morriss 

Cast: Michael J. Fox, James Woods, Stephen Lang, Annabella Sciorra, LL Cool J, Delroy Lindo, Luis Guzman, Penny Marshall, Mary Mara, Christina Ricci, Lewis Black, Kathy Najimy, Yasin Bey, Michael Badalucco 

Nick Lang is a famous Hollywood actor, well known for his action movies. For his next movie, he needs the proper motivation and inspiration for his role. Thus he teams up with the reluctant New York policeman Lt. John Moss. Not only does he have to put up with Nick, who is laborious and out of touch with realities, but he also has to catch a coldblooded murderer.


This is a film I remember being heavily promoted on the radio, television and talk shows and I was really looking forward to it. I am sure the buzz helped as this was LL Cool J’s first major film role and he had an album coming out around the same time with a hot single that was on the soundtrack for this film. The good old days of movie tie-ins and marketing that you just don’t see as much now. Especially when it comes to soundtracks.

LL was a big part of the marketing. It helped bring in a more youthful and urban audience as this was his major acting debut. Even if the role was smaller and supporting. Though he also gets to be the more streetwise detective who is more the joker of the crew.

Now it also helped that I am and was a huge Michael j fox fan. As at the time it seemed like while his movies not a sure thing when it came to success. He was always starring in something and I was more the. Willing usually to go see it. As I had been a huge fox fan from his films but beginning with the sitcom FAMILY TIES.

I believe I always liked up to him as he was funny, had great comedic timing, was short like I am, and still managed to be a heartthrob as well as being energetic and charismatic. Everything you looked for in a star and also what I had hoped to grow up to be. This is one of his most Beloved films for me. Where he had smaller roles like CLASS OF 1984 which was a totally different pace and MIDNIGHT MADNESS. As well as his starring TV-movie HIGH SCHOOL USA. In fact, one of the rare films he starred in that I haven’t seen is still Paul Schrader’s LIGHT OF DAY with Gena Rowland’s and Joan Jett

So obviously this film was kind of a big deal as it was more an action film that I had seen him before. It also had a hard grit and it seemed the first time he was trying something a bit more gritty and challenging though a comedy at heart since the films CASUALTIES OF WAR and BRIGHT LIGHTS BIG CITY.

The film of course is instantly dated and makes fun of Hollywood to a degree and the image of a movie star. Though quickly turns into a more urban action buddy comedy.

It’s a high concept film that seems to be written by the marketing committee. As it is violent and a rated R film. It remains innocent enough to never qualify as a film to keep kids away from. In fact, it seems more aimed at teenagers.

It is certainly a film that couldn’t be made today and if it was. Never would it be such a random team-up of lead actors. It would also more be either cutest with more comedy if made today. Making it even more unbelievable or it would be a big-budget film where they have to take anything offensive out of the film and as this film aspires to have a steamy grittiness it wouldn’t work as well any other way.

Universal Studios originally wanted Kevin Kline and Gene Hackman to star. Which wouldn’t have had the same ring, nor the same kind of hard-edge the film seems to have and go for. Which makes it a perfect time capsule to ’80s/90’s new York and times square in particular where the final action set-piece takes place.

Shot on the streets of New York it seems like the filmmakers went overboard in making it look super dirty and dingy to match the toughness of the so-called reality of the films New York City. Whereas in the few scenes in Hollywood everything is clean and overly lit.

James Woods is good and believable in the lead and matches Fox comedically beat to beat, but can also be dangerous and touch when need be. Both characters teach each other lessons throughout that will help each of them to achieve what they seek to get ahead. There is a romantic subplot with James Woods dating Annabella sciorra and not being successful mainly because he can’t really talk to her or charm her daughter.

This is also the first movie I remember seeing Stephen Lang In a film and being quite impressed. As he seemed to be a one dimensional as far as his mission, but his performance was flamboyant enough that he seemed serious but also was making fun of it at the same time. He seemed to have a sense of humor about all of this. Though still stayed scary almost like an early iteration of the Joker from Batman.

The comedy sticks even if the action plays off as basic and the film seems to seek to have a more urban feel. The film has a very hazy look about it that makes most scenes seem filled with steam and making everything not look sharp but more moist and bland. Though truthfully it also looks like a film that is not quite as sharp or visually talented as director Tony Scott while trying to copy its style.

Though it does offer a look at the old New York before it became so polished and gentrified.

Director of photography Robert Primes was fired halfway through filming by director John Badham and replaced by Donald McAlpine. Badham thought Primes was working too slowly; he had similar complaints during the filming of BIRD ON A WIRE, their previous (and first) movie together.

The film seems to go for a hard edge in the action scenes that make it feel a bit excessive and like it is going over the top at times but quickly reigns it in with the aftermath. Not necessarily an adrenaline junkie movie but one that seems to make you want to feel the bones crunch. It wants to be a tough movie. Though still feels like Hollywood.

While reminding one of the grittiness of New York at the time, though not quite as bad as the movie makes it out to be. At least not in my experiences.

Like the character Michael J. Fox plays it wants to be smooth and likable, but like the character James woods plays is more gritty and tough. That it makes a Compromise but is never clearly defined in either way.

This film as directed by John Badham who seemed to be a go-to Director in the ’80s and 90’s for action films and who o noted every time he made a film. As I could never make a decision as he made some more gritty action films as far as the violence and action but they all seemed to have a heavy gloss that made them look too polished that and usually, their plots seemed so ridiculous that they were hard to believe, but with this film and the remake of LA FEMME NIKITA named POINT OF NO RETURN starring Bridget Fonda. Which I saw before LA FEMME NIKITA so to me point was so original and soulful. Now watching it. It obviously pales in comparison, but as is often you usually are more a fan of something we’re introduced to first even if not the original. So while I love LA FEMME, I have a soft spot for the remake. That I still find watchable despite its flaws.

The film is a hallmark of 90’s action comedies. While not a legendary one. For those who saw, it remains memorable as it follows and introduces a formula. While not rising to classic or great standards. It is good and a worthy watch even if you probably won’t end up adding it to your collection.

Grade: B-

REVERSAL OF FORTUNE (1990)

reversaloffortune

Directed By: Barbet Schroeder
Written By: Nicholas Kazan
Based on the book By: Alan Dershowitz
Cinematography By: Luciano Tovoli
Editor: Lee Percy 


Cast: Jeremy Irons, Ron Silver, Glenn Close, Annabella Sciorra, Uta Hagen, Christine Baranski, Julie Hagerty, Fisher Stevens, Jack Gilpin, Felicity Huffman, Bill Camp, Lisa Gay Hamilton 


Alan Dershowitz a brilliant professor of law is hired by wealthy socialite Claus von Bulow to attempt to overturn his two convictions for attempted murder of his extremely wealthy wife. Based on a true story the film concentrates not on the trial like other legal thrillers, but on the preparatory work that Dershowitz and his students put in as they attempt to disprove the prosecution’s case and achieve the Reversal of Fortune of the title.
Continue reading “REVERSAL OF FORTUNE (1990)”